Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Tell me, explain to me why you might love your mother or why she might love you. You could do it all day and still, you are not any closer to the Truth.
There are huge biological reasons for this. The maternal relationships can be seen all over the mammalian kingdom, especially in primates and humans. So there is a huge and innate connection there just from the natural imperatives.
Then when you ad to that how society has really emphasised the connection, we see there are social imperatives too.
I love my mum very much, but I am not niave of the fact that it is a conditioning brought about by the neurochemical processes of our brains.
This doesn't belittle the love or make it less special, it is just how it is:)
The laws and rules of karma are one of the four inconjecturables, on par with the Buddha range of a Fully Awakened Buddha, a rare but not impossible feat in today's world.
>>>And for this reason, those whom are interested in genuine Truth, practice, and not just talk.
Some of us want to do both:) Please remember this is an internet discussion forum, I would hope this forum is not a central part of any of our practices:) If I was in another forum debating "cars" would you say that was a waste of time too?
On a previous thread about whether it's important to buddhist practice (to nirvana) if one believes in rebirth or not, the over-whelming majority said "no it doesn't matter". Only three said "yes it does matter". Two of those believe in rebirth, one doesn't. Food for thought.
Nios.
Only practice can resolve doubt
When people asked Luang Pu about death and rebirth, or about past and future lives, he was never interested in answering. Or if some people argued that they didn't believe that heaven or hell really existed, he never tried to reason with them or to cite evidence to defeat their arguments. Instead, he'd give them this piece of advice:
"People who practice the Dhamma don't have to give any thought to past or future lives, or to heaven or hell. All they have to do is be firm and intent on practicing correctly in line with the principles of virtue, concentration, and discernment. If there really are 16 levels of heaven as they say in the texts, people who practice well are sure to rise to those levels. Or if heaven and nibbana don't exist, people who practice well don't lack for benefits here and now. They're sure to be happy, as human beings on a high level.
There are huge biological reasons for this. The maternal relationships can be seen all over the mammalian kingdom, especially in primates and humans. So there is a huge and innate connection there just from the natural imperatives.
Then when you ad to that how society has really emphasised the connection, we see there are social imperatives too.
I love my mum very much, but I am not niave of the fact that it is a conditioning brought about by the neurochemical processes of our brains.
This doesn't belittle the love or make it less special, it is just how it is:)
Dear Mat
I had no doubt you, of all people, would explain it to me.
This is an extract of a book review (Understanding Karma and Rebirth: A Buddhist Perspective - by Diana St Ruth)
Rebirth and reincarnation are generally accepted realities in the East and have been since ancient times. What the next life will be is usually the question rather than whether it will be. In the West, on the other hand, we have our own religious and secular beliefs which usually do not include living another life, or at least not in this world or in this way. A common idea amongst Westerners is that annihilation is an unavoidable fact: 'When you're dead you're dead!'
Would it be correct to assume that the majority of Buddhists in the East believe in the rebirth doctrine?
And the majority of Buddhists in the West do not accept the rebirth doctrine?
And what could be the reasons?
(PS I can't afford to buy this book, so don't ask me to read it.)
Good question Sukhita.
From my own experience, the majority of western buddhists do accept literal rebirth, but it's more like 55%. The rest fall into "agnostic" or "no-rebirth". But a poll might answer it better than my personal experience, as many people in the west are solitary buddhists. My experience comes from people I've met at sanghas and other meetings..... maybe there's a trend there? Dunno.
From my own experience, the majority of western buddhists do accept literal rebirth, but it's more like 55%. The rest fall into "agnostic" or "no-rebirth". But a poll might answer it better than my personal experience, as many people in the west are solitary buddhists. My experience comes from people I've met at sanghas and other meetings..... maybe there's a trend there? Dunno...
Thanks for your input, Nios.
I live in South Africa, this is neither in the East nor in the West . There is only one Meditation/Buddhist centre in the province that I live in and they are the New Kadampa tradition - I believe they accept the rebirth doctrine. So I don't come into contact with other Buddhists. A poll is a good idea... but how does one set it up?
On Volume 4, Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche says this while talking about Parting from the four attachments: 34 mins in:
"I have heard that In America and also Europe, there are new Buddhists who said that you don't need reincarnation. And I have a strong point for this, because if you don't believe in reincarnation, then this first one doesnt work, no need. Then you have to have attachment to this life. You are like a flower, there's no next life, this is the only life you have, why practice the Dharma? Why should we prostrate? It's painful.
Why should we do 100,000 prostrations? It's a waste of time. Why should should we sit straight and deprive ourselves from movies, strip clubs, good novels all kinds of things? Theres an amazing life out there, why should we deprive ourself if we have only this life and, and forget about the Dharma. If you have only this life, why not rob a bank too?"
:eek:
But then he goes on to say:
"I recently had a discussion with a scientist who said he has a really difficult time accepting in the Hindu and Buddhist notion of reincarnation, we had alot arguments so finally I asked him a question. You as a scientists, do you believe in time? You scientists call time, time. How about you just change the word, instead of time use reincarnation. If scientists can believe in something totally absurd called time, reincarnation is at least very melancholic, romantic. It actually has a purpose.
Time is much more absurd. Actually some of the really good scientists like einstein, i think he believed that time was relative. And even in Buddhism, never ever did **two names I can't understand are spoken** say there is truly existing reincarnation or there is an ultimate reincarnation. If you have clinging you have no view, In Buddhism reincarnation only exists on the relative level. If you have a clinging to reincarnation, you are wrong. Even in the Mahayana Buddhism"
I have heard that In America and also Europe, there are new Buddhists who said that you don't need reincarnation. And I have a strong point for this, because if you don't believe in reincarnation, then this first one doesnt work, no need. Then you have to have attachment to this life. You are like a flower, there's no next life, this is the only life you have, why practice the Dharma? Why should we prostrate? It's painful.
Why should we do 100,000 prostrations? It's a waste of time. Why should should we sit straight and deprive ourselves from movies, strip clubs, good novels all kinds of things? Theres an amazing life out there, why should we deprive ourself if we have only this life and, and forget about the Dharma. If you have only this life, why not rob a bank too?"
For him perhaps. And that's why he should stick to his path. For me, the notion that if there is no rebirth then the Buddha's teachings are pointless is ridiculous and also selfish. Whether or not there is rebirth there is not an "amazing life out there" in the sense of unconditioned happiness. Those things, regardless of rebirth, are conditioned, impermanent, not-self, and are dukkha when clung to. I would like to find unconditioned peace and happiness in this life as the Buddha did. And whether or not my consciousness somehow continues after what we call death, the rest of the world still carries on and hopefully it will be a somewhat better place for the choices I made.
Why not rob a bank? Because it's taking what's not mine, and I'll end up spending a portion of this precious life in jail, and it will affect me in seeking employment in the future, affect my family, affect everyone involved, etc. Do those who believe in rebirth never rob a bank, and those who don't believe in it always end up robbing a bank? Sheesh. :rolleyes: See, Mahayana practices can be very selfish too despite popular belief: "If there is no rebirth then I'm off to rob a bank and rape women and kick little babies--why not?!"
Those worldly-pleasures he describes, btw, are not the issue. It's clinging to them and seeking unconditioned happiness in them that's the issue.
This means that the chances of one being reincarnated as an ant/animal is more than 1 million times those of being reborn as a human being.
Put in another way, the proportion of beings with bad karma to those of good karma is more than 1 million to 1.
Well, why do you think this human rebirth is called the Precious Human Birth? Teacher tells a story: imagine a sea turtle in the ocean. And floating in that ocean is a ring (sometimes "a toilet seat"). And the turtle comes up for air. What are the odds that the turtle's head will come up through the opening in that ring? Those are the odds of being born a human.
It is said that the karmas that propell one into an animal/insect rebirth are thoughtlessness, living life automatically, living like the animals do. It's not "bad" karma that does it ... but just that we set our imprints every moment of our life, and when if we live thoughtlessly, then we are going to go into a thoughtless rebirth.
Myself, I prefer to think of these as metaphorical examples. After all, someone who burns with anger is already in hell. Someone who has a grasping thirst is already a hungry ghost. Someone who lives thoughtlessly already lives as an animal.
As for rebirth, if there is a continuation after the death of this body, then I will not find out until I have died. And if there is no continuation ... then I'll never know that, will I? It is actually irrelevant ... in this point in time we live in samsara, and Buddha has shown us the way out. This is what really matters.
Well, why do you think this human rebirth is called the Precious Human Birth? Teacher tells a story: imagine a sea turtle in the ocean. And floating in that ocean is a ring (sometimes "a toilet seat"). And the turtle comes up for air. What are the odds that the turtle's head will come up through the opening in that ring? Those are the odds of being born a human.
It is said that the karmas that propell one into an animal/insect rebirth are thoughtlessness, living life automatically, living like the animals do. It's not "bad" karma that does it ... but just that we set our imprints every moment of our life, and when if we live thoughtlessly, then we are going to go into a thoughtless rebirth.
Myself, I prefer to think of these as metaphorical examples. After all, someone who burns with anger is already in hell. Someone who has a grasping thirst is already a hungry ghost. Someone who lives thoughtlessly already lives as an animal.
As for rebirth, if there is a continuation after the death of this body, then I will not find out until I have died. And if there is no continuation ... then I'll never know that, will I? It is actually irrelevant ... in this point in time we live in samsara, and Buddha has shown us the way out. This is what really matters.
thanks for the explanation!! it finally makes sense!
However, i disagree with some of the posts here that it's not important whether or not rebirth exists. I thought Buddhism has always taught rebirth, and getting out of this cycle is the whole point of Buddhism. If rebirth does not exist, perhaps - just perhaps - religions with the concept of a God, like Christianity, may make more sense.
That said, however, I still believe in rebirth - and that will probably remain a belief until I actually experience it first hand
I thought Buddhism has always taught rebirth, and getting out of this cycle is the whole point of Buddhism.
By far most Buddhists believe it is so, that The Buddha taught Rebirth. Then others think he was agnostic about it and an even smaller handful (me, at least) think he may have taught that Rebirth was Wrong View.
But there are two crucial things to know about these variant positions:
1) We will never be able to know for sure what the Buddha Taught
2) It doesn't matter to practice in all but the indulgent Philosophical sense.
If rebirth does not exist, perhaps - just perhaps - religions with the concept of a God, like Christianity, may make more sense.
I think rebirth probably makes more sense than heaven or a human interested god. Rebirth has a nice cyclical improvement (emergence!) quality to it that heaven doesn't. Rebirth could be a spiritual evolution of a spiritual type from the mundane to the supreme over countless iterations.
If you were trying to design a universal computer for the production of Noble Sentient beings, rebirth is the way to go:)
I don’t believe the question is, “Is there rebirth?”
But rather:
“When they speak of "rebirth," what do they mean?”
For instance, if rebirth takes place in time, it might be speaking of reincarnation, granted.
But if rebirth takes place in the Immediate Moment (AKA Eternity) ((a special favorite of mine)) than every thought represents a rebirth, right here and right now, and all of the ramifications of that thought come right along with it.
So:
If our thoughts are habitually negative and hurtful, where we are living (during those thoughts) is also hurtful and negative. Put enough of these thought together (habitually) and it becomes problematic. See what I mean?
The vast majority of Buddhists (the East included) believe in rebirth... that is.... when this physical body (or organic life) is no more capable of functioning, energies (or karmic forces) do not die with it but continue to take some other shape or form, which they call another life. Not to believe in rebirth for them is akin to saying: Death is, at the disintegration of the body, a complete annihilation of everything that comprises their present existence. If Buddhism were to teach that the rebirth doctrine is wrong view altogether, they would be utterly confused and would in all probability convert to another religion, like Hinduism. :eek:
On the question: "Is rebirth for real"... maybe we can dismiss it by saying "To each his own..." The rebirth doctrine, IMHO, can neither be proved nor disproved experimentally, but still, it is accepted by individual practitioners as something that can be "evidentially" verified.
If Buddhism were to teach that the rebirth doctrine is wrong view altogether, they would be utterly confused and would in all probability convert to another religion, like Hinduism. :eek:
I don't agree, speaking from my personal experience:) I find the inclusion of rebirth in (or glued onto by faith) Dharma utterly confusing:)
On the question: "Is rebirth for real"... maybe we can dismiss it by saying "To each his own..." The rebirth doctrine, IMHO, can neither be proved nor disproved experimentally, but still, it is accepted by individual practitioners as something that can be "evidentially" verified.
I think that calling recycling 'a rebirth' is a stretch, don’t you? I've heard others say this too. I believe it is a common misuse of that word.
If you recycle physically, you are no longer you. Your physical self has become basic ingredients and chemicals, subject to change and rearrangement, an ecology.
If however you are speaking of life force (impersonal) that continues endlessly, as a collective (unity), like the life force of the universe. Than there is not really rebirth, as you don't die either, in order to get reborn. It is more like there is a basic essence (a spiritual soup) that everything comes up out of and then returns into…much like what many call the Tao.
Rebirth when hitched with death, and so commonly thought of, certainly begins to speak of an ongoing personality. Without this ongoing personality, it becomes so impersonal that it isn't really the you, which you identify with. It is just one more life, like a neighbor across the street, or some guy in China.
My post was not about my personal explanation of rebirth (call it by any other name if you want)... it was about lay Buddhist life, especially in the East. They pay a great deal of attention in making merit for the "next life". All I'm saying is that telling these people that they got the wrong end of the stick with regard to rebirth is not very skillful.
It seems to me that there is still much that is very useful in Buddhism even if one rejects the notion of rebirth on the basis that it seems so extremely improbable as to be almost impossible from a scientific point of view. The question of how the individual consciousness can remain in the absence of a living brain or the senses is highly pertinent.
If we look at the methodology of the ancients, they seemed to emphasise meditation, which represents an inward search for the truth of a matter. Now, it is known to be not uncommon for dying or unconscious or comatose individuals to experience faulty brain circuitry and see visions of lights, colours and entities. So I guess that it is entirely possible that the ancients may have been in error when they deployed meditation to address the difficult matter of death. The brain is an organ that does not always decode reality properly.
Rebirth does not means there is any from of transfer of soul/or self , it just means transfer of causes to another form of existence. All energies do not destory, they just continue to recycle from one state to another state, likewise the new lifes ( stars, planet, mountain, rivers, plants etc ) took the raw materials & cause of the earlier state to from new phneomena, it is logically & natural understanding
From Mahayana canon, according to The Treatise on the Establishment of the Consciousness-Only Doctrine ( by Dharmapala ) , listed the five false views are:
1) Though the mind and body are no more than a temporary union of the five components ( aggregates ), one regards them as possessing a self that is absolute; and though nothing in the universe can belong to an individual, one views one's mind and body as one's own possession;
2) the belief in one of two extremes concerning existence: that life ends with death, or that life persists after death in some eternal and unchanging form;
3) denial of the law of cause and effect;
4) adhering to misconceptions and viewing them as truth, while regarding inferior views as superior;
5) viewing erroneous practices or precepts as the correct way to enlightenment.
The Great Teacher Tientai includes this 5 falses view along with the 5 delusive inclinations (of Greed, anger, foolishness, arrogance, and doubt ( from The Dharma Analysis Treasury) ) , and constitute them as the ten fundamental earthly desires
Interesting ideas. I suppose it's reasonable to say that there is life after death, in the sense that the physical constituents of the body continue to sustain other forms of life, such as bacteria and scavenging creatures, and then becomes food for the plants in the soil. That's a form of transformation that I suppose might have been the real intention expressed by the Buddhist masters in their expositions.
<HR style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #c0c0c0; COLOR: #c0c0c0" SIZE=1> <!-- / icon and title --><!-- message --> Hello, i'm a Buddhist who have believed in rebirth all long, but not really completely as obviously i've not personally experienced it. Oh but you have. You have.
Seriously, I'm always thinking about what happens when we die, and after (if or whether there is anything after that). The theory of reincarnation just looks too convenient though, as a kind of prop holding up the corners of a caste-based society and stopping people from causing disquiet and protesting against deprivation or social problems. Perhaps I'm just cynical, but in any case I would really like to know whether it's true. The only way to know, it seems, would be to become a Buddha.
Hmm.. not sure. The man-made caste system could conceivably force the hand of any 'natural' system of rebirth. If, for example, you were living in India under Manu's law, if you were born into a brahmin or kshatriya household it would have made an enormous difference as to whether you could enjoy the benefits of a life free of servitude and with plenty of resources. Also, the man-made caste system, despite being artificial, has real lasting effects in heredity and genetics. For example if you have a person born into a kshatriya family that person is likely to be stronger and braver, and enjoy sexual favours from many women. A person born into a brahmin family would be more intelligent, have parents that insist on their education, etc. So the man-made systems do to a great extent manipulate the hand of reincarnation, if reincarnation is real. One can also cite examples from the animal kingdom, where for example a cow born in Wales on a battery farm might have a hard life but a cow born on a certain organic food afficionado's farm in Japan would enjoy daily massages, being fed on beer and equestrian cereals, etc. all the way up to slaughter. If karma really does decide, and reincarnation is really factual, then it would be better to be born a brahmin than a Dalit, better a Japanese specialist cow than a Fresian cow in Britain, etc.
Try to see successive rebirth less in episodic terms or compartmentalized terms, and more in light of a fluid/dynamic long term path of karmic evolution. In the final analysis of rebirth it's the destination that is important not the "stop overs" that count.
There is a very good book that says pretty much what you are saying here, with a slightly different twist. “It is called “Passages,” and is more of a psychological take, because the author refers to these as “stage” (of life), and says that they show a measurable uniformity in all human life as we age. Often the way we look at life (our viewpoint) during these stages, changes drastically and predictably.
Looked at differently:
Some yogis consider every single breath a life, with each inhalation being a birth, and each exhalation being a death. It also seems to them that our thoughts do not linger from breath to breath either, as they seem to, but actually die with every exhaled breath, as/well.
These thoughts may seem like they are continuing to live from breath to breath, or continue, but in fact are separate thoughts which are only similar to each other and giving that impression, a little like not stepping into the river twice in the same place.
There are so many ways to look at these things, and our mind can be such a deceiver with its imaginations too often believed, and solidifying into immovable opinions.
I like the candle analogy, I'm not sure where I've heard it from though.
If you have a line of candles and light one, blow it out and light another one, with continuing, the flames are from the same essence but are different.
What I have always thought is : What is the sense of practicing Buddhism without rebirth. If we have only one life why not just act bad and do whatever we want.
Surely it would be extremely hard to attain enlightenment in this one life time.
I apologize if someone has already used this analogy and I missed it.
But the real question is, after we die, what will we remember next? Will we awaken and be in another reality? Or will our consciousness be gone?
What about the evidence and stories about ghosts, EVP and poltergeists from credible people? Isn't that evidence for an afterlife?
And NDE's? I heard the Tibetan Book of the Dead talks about going into the light?
Research the difference between Buddhist reincarnation and Buddhist re-birth.
Buddhist re-incarnation is for advanced and illuminated Tibetan lamas.
Buddhist re-birth is for the remaining lesser mortals such as you and me!
rebirth is the continuation of consciousness....
Buddhists do not ascribe to a transmigrating soul.
it implies a duplication of the person, which is not the case, in re-birth....
As for remembering previous lives, can you remember what you were doing on Sunday 24th march 1991?
If you can't remember that, why do you suppose you should remember a previous life?
That's not the same thing. Remembering one day of your life is not the same as remembering a whole period. I can remember my general childhood for example, but not what I was doing on an exact date and time.
Why would he?
jesus didn't.... He was a teacher, not a writer. he had followers, not readers...
Does it matter?
I mean, really, does it?
It matters cause if the founder of a religion didn't write anything, then we can't know for sure what he said or taught. His followers could be making it up or distorting it. We just don't know.
Today any guru or leader will usually write stuff. It's just common sense. Otherwise, a question mark looms over everything. We have no certainty.
That's not the same thing. Remembering one day of your life is not the same as remembering a whole period. I can remember my general childhood for example, but not what I was doing on an exact date and time.
How do you know that your current habitual patterns arent those "memories".
There are so many ways to look at these things, and our mind can be such a deceiver with its imaginations too often believed, and solidifying into immovable opinions.
indeed!!
i myself tend to believe rebirth is real, but i am willing to give up any view that may hinder me along the way.
Why not rob a bank? Because it's taking what's not mine, and I'll end up spending a portion of this precious life in jail, and it will affect me in seeking employment in the future, affect my family, affect everyone involved, etc. Do those who believe in rebirth never rob a bank, and those who don't believe in it always end up robbing a bank? Sheesh. :rolleyes: See, Mahayana practices can be very selfish too despite popular belief: "If there is no rebirth then I'm off to rob a bank and rape women and kick little babies--why not?!"
as buddhists though we are guided by the precepts and a sense of right and wrong, and goodness and loving-kindness, but however for non-buddhists these guidelines do not apply, they do whatever they want to do. maybe, believing in re-birth whilst suspending its absolute truth can be a skillful thing, to advise others. if the people fail to get it in their heads that bad actions have consequences, then this world will continue to plummet into sadness and hellish suffering. isn't reincarnation in accordance with no-self? there is no one to be reborn but habit-energy and impure karma carries across from one location of sentience to another. the evildoer that lives this life and has a decent amount of enjoyment in it dies and passes away, but their karma, their action is still preserved in the memory of the earth (for example through historical record), and that non-self which didn't exist with the evil-doer, continues to not exist in sentient life born after the evildoers passing away. the negative karmic energy persists until it is absorbed and dissolved fully away, haunting the sentience of beings near to it in karma which they be responsible for.
Why not rob a bank? Because it's taking what's not mine, and I'll end up spending a portion of this precious life in jail, and it will affect me in seeking employment in the future, affect my family, affect everyone involved, etc. Do those who believe in rebirth never rob a bank, and those who don't believe in it always end up robbing a bank? Sheesh. :rolleyes: See, Mahayana practices can be very selfish too despite popular belief: "If there is no rebirth then I'm off to rob a bank and rape women and kick little babies--why not?!"
S: It was about lay Buddhist life, especially in the East. They pay a great deal of attention in making merit for the "next life".
And:
All I'm saying is that telling these people that they got the wrong end of the stick with regard to rebirth is not very skillful.
S9: If someone is given the wrong end of the stick by whatever circumstance or doctrine, wouldn’t it be compassionate on my part to show them a way out, by showing them how birth in a particular family or circumstance wasn’t the whole ball of wax? : ^ )
Further, might it not be better to bring some good news into their lives, by showing them that they were equally capable of becoming ‘Realize’ and what suffering actually was, so they too might escape it the illusions of suffering?
These are not children, who need to be taught to cover their eyes in order to escape their situation, but rather people who can rise above it with the Right View, and full deserve to know this, don’t you think?
A: Rebirth does not means there is any from of transfer of soul/or self, it just means transfer of causes to another form of existence.
S9: I think that calling a transfer of causes, a rebirth, is certainly an inefficient use of language. Only a double-talking politician could say something more apt to cause confusion, and still keep a smile on his face.
; ^ )
So why not try a little harder to be clear about such a subject as this, one so prone to misunderstanding already?
No not you, but the tranlaters making such a poor representations of the truth. Was it simply a word bias on their part, because they actually believed in reincarnation and wanted to push that idea?
Or:
Could it be, like Sukhita had referred to earlier, that laypeople are so often told what they want to hear, and the church fathers want to mask this in confusion or deniability? I certainly hope not.
A: All energies do not destroy, they just continue to recycle from one state to another state, likewise the new lives (stars, planet, mountain, rivers, plants etc) took the raw materials & cause of the earlier state to from new phenomena, it is logically & natural understanding.
S9: Saying a star is born is just a poetic use of language. For a star is not really anything more than a process without consciousness or awareness of itself, not really born. People are not, in this same way, only organic computers without any consciousness or awareness of themselves.
Sometimes we have to stop weaving explanations in are head, which cannot stand up to the pure scrutiny of personal experience or even deep investigation. This, my friend, would certainly be the beginning of wisdom.
Wisdom is something lived and not just an accumulation of other peoples words. Even if these words were based upon these other person's experiences, they are 2nd hand, and they will never be ours until we personally experience or witness them for ourselves.
It does us not good at/all to parrot scriptures, if we don’t look to see if these are true in our own experience and with our own lights.
Scriptures are only fingers pointing to where we ourselves must journey or investigate. We must do our own legwork in this area, or simply remain scholars not necessarily also Awake or Realized. Wouldn't that be a sad outcome? : ^ (
I think that calling a transfer of causes, a rebirth, is certainly an inefficient use of language. Only a double-talking politician could say something more apt to cause confusion, and still keep a smile on his face.
; ^ )
The idea is that the mindstream doesn't depend on the body, i.e. it doesn't die when the body dies. On the other hand it changes continuously, just like the cells of certain parts of our body get completely substituted and we still call it our body.
One of the arguments they use is that we are born with certain characteristics that have no explanation. You are born with a bad temper, for instance. They say it has to have a cause as everything else, it can't be pure randomness, so they call the cause for that rebirth.
Some other explanations [abridged, snippets of many texts] goes as follows:
It would be incorrect to say that this mind could arise from any working thing other than matter or mind, and so it must come from one or the other of these two.
Suppose you say that it's matter which provides the material cause. Is it matter in the sense of some substance which is a whole, or is it atoms?
Suppose you say that atoms [organ\body parts\cells\molecules or atoms] provide the material cause for the mind. If it's that the mind arises through each of the atoms [organ\ body parts], acting independently of each other, then many different mental consciousnesses would have to arise at the same time. If it's that the atoms must act all together in a group, then the mind could never arise if even a single atom [organ\body part] were absent.
What about a case where the power of the eye [or any body part, the brain for instance] is damaged, and because of this the consciousness of the eye loses its ability to see its object? Isn't it common knowledge that you then undergo some feelings of distress, and that these affect the mind? [the opponent here is trying to say that when the body is hurt the mind is subject to change, so it has to be body parts].
This though is no problem. It is true that such cases are possible, but it is not that mind is affected by the damage to the sense power. Rather, the damage to the eye power provides a general condition for a separate occurrence, the distress [so what he is saying is that when the brain is injured, for example, the mind, which is not physical, experiences distress]. The distress itself increases to a point to where the mind as well is affected.
This reasoning, where we use the process of eliminating all other possibilities, brings us to the conclusion that the material cause for mind is mind itself.
The mind that acts as the cause must moreover either be one which is part of yourself or one which is part of someone else. Suppose you say that a mind which is part of someone else, of someone like your father or mother, acts as the direct material cause for this mind. The problem then arises that—where the father is a skilled artisan, or say foolish, or whatever—the son must always be this way as well.
This leads us to conclude that it can only be a former mind which is part of our own stream of consciousness that provides the material cause [for our mind as it exists just after we are born.]
Among humans as well some come with larger bodies, and then some with smaller ones. Certain people come with a very sharp intellect, and others with one which is dull. Some children display a great amount of understanding and love and the like, while others show a tendency towards attachment and other bad thoughts. According to you, these and similar cases should be impossible, because beings take birth only through the elements, without having to depend on any earlier instance of a similar type.
N: The idea is that the mind-stream doesn't depend on the body.
S9: I must admit that I am not clear on what you mean by mind-stream. Is this like habits/engrams that have their own life? Or is it more like imprints on some kind of cosmic consciousness like a movie, or radio waves? Could you clarify this for me a bit? Thanx
: ^ )
N: One of the arguments they use is that we are born with certain characteristics that have no explanation.
S9: Wouldn’t genetics explain this? Genetics being a physical soup which every living thing dips into? So that temper might be a predisposition, could be from your great grand dad, often brought to the surface by circumstance.
This might be smilar to a maple seed causing a maple tree, more a cycle than a rebirth.
N: It would be incorrect to say that this mind could arise from any working thing other than matter or mind, and so it must come from one or the other of these two.
S9: This is certainly a common explanation. But than where did matter or mind come from? So often we are thrown back to the “Don’t know mind.” Things are so complex that it leaves us in awe.
I don’t think we should speculate further than we can see. Oh we can do it for fun, but mustn't consider it an answer just because we thought it, Too much fantasy and we’ll end up in a Disney film. ; ^ )
And:
Science plays a little game with our heads. It fills us up with stories and explanations about atoms, and then says there IS no atoms anymore…we were only kidding. Smile
The strange thing is that when we start looking directly, like we were born only today, we have less knowledge, but things begin to clarify for us.
I would agree with you that the body/mind is one thing…as one can see easily that they work in conjunction, yet what are they, really? I have been favoring the paradigm of them both being a dream. Can you improve on this?
N: This reasoning, where we use the process of eliminating all other possibilities, brings us to the conclusion that the material cause for mind is mind itself.
S9: This makes me think of the Big Bang Theory, where there was nothing, and then it exploded. One has to ask, “What exploded.”
‘Mind Only” makes one wonder, why mind, where did it come from? We are back to believing if we don't question. Can you see what I’m saying?
I think this is because mental concepts aren’t satisfying. They don’t nourish us. They are as thin as water soup. Fill you up only to leave you empty and hungry real quick. : ^ (
Only personal experience is any kind of a trusted answer. When you look directly, and see clearly, finally you are no longer astringed or isolated, or doing some kind of crazy dance with words. You have come home.
Remember this. When you start saying what caused what, you are reaching backwards for explanations…which only leads to an endless, “Yes but, what cause that?”
I enjoyed you interesting take on this complicated question. : ^ )
'' समूह टूट गया है और केवल वे,' वार कहते हैं, "और मृत्यु में उनकी consisteth विघटन ।''' एक आदमी की अंतर्दृष्टि दिन-ब-दिन उनके देखता है; वे जैसे अलंकार चौपट हो गई है-बशर्ते द्वारा यह हीरा है ।"
Comments
There are huge biological reasons for this. The maternal relationships can be seen all over the mammalian kingdom, especially in primates and humans. So there is a huge and innate connection there just from the natural imperatives.
Then when you ad to that how society has really emphasised the connection, we see there are social imperatives too.
I love my mum very much, but I am not niave of the fact that it is a conditioning brought about by the neurochemical processes of our brains.
This doesn't belittle the love or make it less special, it is just how it is:)
The laws and rules of karma are one of the four inconjecturables, on par with the Buddha range of a Fully Awakened Buddha, a rare but not impossible feat in today's world.
>>>And for this reason, those whom are interested in genuine Truth, practice, and not just talk.
Some of us want to do both:) Please remember this is an internet discussion forum, I would hope this forum is not a central part of any of our practices:) If I was in another forum debating "cars" would you say that was a waste of time too?
We are humans, we have interests:)
Well wishes
Mat
Dear Mat
I had no doubt you, of all people, would explain it to me.
Enjoy.
Abu
Gassho.
Nios
Thankyou Nios and thankyou for the friendship.
Blessings to you and yours always.
Would it be correct to assume that the majority of Buddhists in the East believe in the rebirth doctrine?
And the majority of Buddhists in the West do not accept the rebirth doctrine?
And what could be the reasons?
(PS I can't afford to buy this book, so don't ask me to read it.)
From my own experience, the majority of western buddhists do accept literal rebirth, but it's more like 55%. The rest fall into "agnostic" or "no-rebirth". But a poll might answer it better than my personal experience, as many people in the west are solitary buddhists. My experience comes from people I've met at sanghas and other meetings..... maybe there's a trend there? Dunno.
Nios
Thanks for your input, Nios.
I live in South Africa, this is neither in the East nor in the West
Kind regards,
Sukitha
Nios.
I got the poll going...it was quite easy. Again, thanks for your suggestion.
Kind regards,
Sukhita
You know I thought this too, but after hearing this: http://www.siddharthasintent.org/2008/03/volumes-4-and-5-parting-from-t.html
On Volume 4, Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche says this while talking about Parting from the four attachments: 34 mins in:
"I have heard that In America and also Europe, there are new Buddhists who said that you don't need reincarnation. And I have a strong point for this, because if you don't believe in reincarnation, then this first one doesnt work, no need. Then you have to have attachment to this life. You are like a flower, there's no next life, this is the only life you have, why practice the Dharma? Why should we prostrate? It's painful.
Why should we do 100,000 prostrations? It's a waste of time. Why should should we sit straight and deprive ourselves from movies, strip clubs, good novels all kinds of things? Theres an amazing life out there, why should we deprive ourself if we have only this life and, and forget about the Dharma. If you have only this life, why not rob a bank too?"
:eek:
But then he goes on to say:
"I recently had a discussion with a scientist who said he has a really difficult time accepting in the Hindu and Buddhist notion of reincarnation, we had alot arguments so finally I asked him a question. You as a scientists, do you believe in time? You scientists call time, time. How about you just change the word, instead of time use reincarnation. If scientists can believe in something totally absurd called time, reincarnation is at least very melancholic, romantic. It actually has a purpose.
Time is much more absurd. Actually some of the really good scientists like einstein, i think he believed that time was relative. And even in Buddhism, never ever did **two names I can't understand are spoken** say there is truly existing reincarnation or there is an ultimate reincarnation. If you have clinging you have no view, In Buddhism reincarnation only exists on the relative level. If you have a clinging to reincarnation, you are wrong. Even in the Mahayana Buddhism"
If you were John Wayne in a past life time it doesn't change the fact that you are Alex Douglas in this lifetime.
"Get off yer horse and drink yer milkrice..."
Why not rob a bank? Because it's taking what's not mine, and I'll end up spending a portion of this precious life in jail, and it will affect me in seeking employment in the future, affect my family, affect everyone involved, etc. Do those who believe in rebirth never rob a bank, and those who don't believe in it always end up robbing a bank? Sheesh. :rolleyes: See, Mahayana practices can be very selfish too despite popular belief: "If there is no rebirth then I'm off to rob a bank and rape women and kick little babies--why not?!"
Those worldly-pleasures he describes, btw, are not the issue. It's clinging to them and seeking unconditioned happiness in them that's the issue.
On another note: if your little man decides to make an appearance on his due date we'll have the same birthday!
I got a kick out of that anyway
Well, why do you think this human rebirth is called the Precious Human Birth? Teacher tells a story: imagine a sea turtle in the ocean. And floating in that ocean is a ring (sometimes "a toilet seat"). And the turtle comes up for air. What are the odds that the turtle's head will come up through the opening in that ring? Those are the odds of being born a human.
It is said that the karmas that propell one into an animal/insect rebirth are thoughtlessness, living life automatically, living like the animals do. It's not "bad" karma that does it ... but just that we set our imprints every moment of our life, and when if we live thoughtlessly, then we are going to go into a thoughtless rebirth.
Myself, I prefer to think of these as metaphorical examples. After all, someone who burns with anger is already in hell. Someone who has a grasping thirst is already a hungry ghost. Someone who lives thoughtlessly already lives as an animal.
As for rebirth, if there is a continuation after the death of this body, then I will not find out until I have died. And if there is no continuation ... then I'll never know that, will I? It is actually irrelevant ... in this point in time we live in samsara, and Buddha has shown us the way out. This is what really matters.
Haha well if so I will call him Kikujiro Jr.
thanks for the explanation!! it finally makes sense!
However, i disagree with some of the posts here that it's not important whether or not rebirth exists. I thought Buddhism has always taught rebirth, and getting out of this cycle is the whole point of Buddhism. If rebirth does not exist, perhaps - just perhaps - religions with the concept of a God, like Christianity, may make more sense.
That said, however, I still believe in rebirth - and that will probably remain a belief until I actually experience it first hand
By far most Buddhists believe it is so, that The Buddha taught Rebirth. Then others think he was agnostic about it and an even smaller handful (me, at least) think he may have taught that Rebirth was Wrong View.
But there are two crucial things to know about these variant positions:
1) We will never be able to know for sure what the Buddha Taught
2) It doesn't matter to practice in all but the indulgent Philosophical sense.
I think rebirth probably makes more sense than heaven or a human interested god. Rebirth has a nice cyclical improvement (emergence!) quality to it that heaven doesn't. Rebirth could be a spiritual evolution of a spiritual type from the mundane to the supreme over countless iterations.
If you were trying to design a universal computer for the production of Noble Sentient beings, rebirth is the way to go:)
fun thoughts:)
Mat
But rather:
“When they speak of "rebirth," what do they mean?”
For instance, if rebirth takes place in time, it might be speaking of reincarnation, granted.
But if rebirth takes place in the Immediate Moment (AKA Eternity) ((a special favorite of mine)) than every thought represents a rebirth, right here and right now, and all of the ramifications of that thought come right along with it.
So:
If our thoughts are habitually negative and hurtful, where we are living (during those thoughts) is also hurtful and negative. Put enough of these thought together (habitually) and it becomes problematic. See what I mean?
Change our thoughts, and we change our world.
Warm Regards,
S9
On the question: "Is rebirth for real"... maybe we can dismiss it by saying "To each his own..." The rebirth doctrine, IMHO, can neither be proved nor disproved experimentally, but still, it is accepted by individual practitioners as something that can be "evidentially" verified.
I don't agree, speaking from my personal experience:) I find the inclusion of rebirth in (or glued onto by faith) Dharma utterly confusing:)
Absoultly. Be our own lights:)
Mat
I think that calling recycling 'a rebirth' is a stretch, don’t you? I've heard others say this too. I believe it is a common misuse of that word.
If you recycle physically, you are no longer you. Your physical self has become basic ingredients and chemicals, subject to change and rearrangement, an ecology.
If however you are speaking of life force (impersonal) that continues endlessly, as a collective (unity), like the life force of the universe. Than there is not really rebirth, as you don't die either, in order to get reborn. It is more like there is a basic essence (a spiritual soup) that everything comes up out of and then returns into…much like what many call the Tao.
Rebirth when hitched with death, and so commonly thought of, certainly begins to speak of an ongoing personality. Without this ongoing personality, it becomes so impersonal that it isn't really the you, which you identify with. It is just one more life, like a neighbor across the street, or some guy in China.
Warm Regards,
S9
I think we got our wires crossed.
My post was not about my personal explanation of rebirth (call it by any other name if you want)... it was about lay Buddhist life, especially in the East. They pay a great deal of attention in making merit for the "next life". All I'm saying is that telling these people that they got the wrong end of the stick with regard to rebirth is not very skillful.
Kind Regards,
Sukhita
If we look at the methodology of the ancients, they seemed to emphasise meditation, which represents an inward search for the truth of a matter. Now, it is known to be not uncommon for dying or unconscious or comatose individuals to experience faulty brain circuitry and see visions of lights, colours and entities. So I guess that it is entirely possible that the ancients may have been in error when they deployed meditation to address the difficult matter of death. The brain is an organ that does not always decode reality properly.
From Mahayana canon, according to The Treatise on the Establishment of the Consciousness-Only Doctrine ( by Dharmapala ) , listed the five false views are:
1) Though the mind and body are no more than a temporary union of the five components ( aggregates ), one regards them as possessing a self that is absolute; and though nothing in the universe can belong to an individual, one views one's mind and body as one's own possession;
2) the belief in one of two extremes concerning existence: that life ends with death, or that life persists after death in some eternal and unchanging form;
3) denial of the law of cause and effect;
4) adhering to misconceptions and viewing them as truth, while regarding inferior views as superior;
5) viewing erroneous practices or precepts as the correct way to enlightenment.
The Great Teacher Tientai includes this 5 falses view along with the 5 delusive inclinations (of Greed, anger, foolishness, arrogance, and doubt ( from The Dharma Analysis Treasury) ) , and constitute them as the ten fundamental earthly desires
Hello, i'm a Buddhist who have believed in rebirth all long, but not really completely as obviously i've not personally experienced it.
Oh but you have. You have.
http://www.rebirthmuseum.com/
Seriously, I'm always thinking about what happens when we die, and after (if or whether there is anything after that). The theory of reincarnation just looks too convenient though, as a kind of prop holding up the corners of a caste-based society and stopping people from causing disquiet and protesting against deprivation or social problems. Perhaps I'm just cynical, but in any case I would really like to know whether it's true. The only way to know, it seems, would be to become a Buddha.
We had life in utero, as infants, young children, teenagers, young adult hood and middle age for some of us.
We will have old age for some of us, too.
These are almost like different lifetimes.
I tend to agree with you on this issue. : ^ )
There is a very good book that says pretty much what you are saying here, with a slightly different twist. “It is called “Passages,” and is more of a psychological take, because the author refers to these as “stage” (of life), and says that they show a measurable uniformity in all human life as we age. Often the way we look at life (our viewpoint) during these stages, changes drastically and predictably.
Looked at differently:
Some yogis consider every single breath a life, with each inhalation being a birth, and each exhalation being a death. It also seems to them that our thoughts do not linger from breath to breath either, as they seem to, but actually die with every exhaled breath, as/well.
These thoughts may seem like they are continuing to live from breath to breath, or continue, but in fact are separate thoughts which are only similar to each other and giving that impression, a little like not stepping into the river twice in the same place.
There are so many ways to look at these things, and our mind can be such a deceiver with its imaginations too often believed, and solidifying into immovable opinions.
Warm Regards,
S9
But the real question is, after we die, what will we remember next? Will we awaken and be in another reality? Or will our consciousness be gone?
What about the evidence and stories about ghosts, EVP and poltergeists from credible people? Isn't that evidence for an afterlife?
And NDE's? I heard the Tibetan Book of the Dead talks about going into the light?
That's not the same thing. Remembering one day of your life is not the same as remembering a whole period. I can remember my general childhood for example, but not what I was doing on an exact date and time.
It matters cause if the founder of a religion didn't write anything, then we can't know for sure what he said or taught. His followers could be making it up or distorting it. We just don't know.
Today any guru or leader will usually write stuff. It's just common sense. Otherwise, a question mark looms over everything. We have no certainty.
i myself tend to believe rebirth is real, but i am willing to give up any view that may hinder me along the way.
S: It was about lay Buddhist life, especially in the East. They pay a great deal of attention in making merit for the "next life".
And:
All I'm saying is that telling these people that they got the wrong end of the stick with regard to rebirth is not very skillful.
S9: If someone is given the wrong end of the stick by whatever circumstance or doctrine, wouldn’t it be compassionate on my part to show them a way out, by showing them how birth in a particular family or circumstance wasn’t the whole ball of wax? : ^ )
Further, might it not be better to bring some good news into their lives, by showing them that they were equally capable of becoming ‘Realize’ and what suffering actually was, so they too might escape it the illusions of suffering?
These are not children, who need to be taught to cover their eyes in order to escape their situation, but rather people who can rise above it with the Right View, and full deserve to know this, don’t you think?
Sincerely,
S9
A: Rebirth does not means there is any from of transfer of soul/or self, it just means transfer of causes to another form of existence.
S9: I think that calling a transfer of causes, a rebirth, is certainly an inefficient use of language. Only a double-talking politician could say something more apt to cause confusion, and still keep a smile on his face.
; ^ )
So why not try a little harder to be clear about such a subject as this, one so prone to misunderstanding already?
No not you, but the tranlaters making such a poor representations of the truth. Was it simply a word bias on their part, because they actually believed in reincarnation and wanted to push that idea?
Or:
Could it be, like Sukhita had referred to earlier, that laypeople are so often told what they want to hear, and the church fathers want to mask this in confusion or deniability? I certainly hope not.
A: All energies do not destroy, they just continue to recycle from one state to another state, likewise the new lives (stars, planet, mountain, rivers, plants etc) took the raw materials & cause of the earlier state to from new phenomena, it is logically & natural understanding.
S9: Saying a star is born is just a poetic use of language. For a star is not really anything more than a process without consciousness or awareness of itself, not really born. People are not, in this same way, only organic computers without any consciousness or awareness of themselves.
Sometimes we have to stop weaving explanations in are head, which cannot stand up to the pure scrutiny of personal experience or even deep investigation. This, my friend, would certainly be the beginning of wisdom.
Wisdom is something lived and not just an accumulation of other peoples words. Even if these words were based upon these other person's experiences, they are 2nd hand, and they will never be ours until we personally experience or witness them for ourselves.
It does us not good at/all to parrot scriptures, if we don’t look to see if these are true in our own experience and with our own lights.
Scriptures are only fingers pointing to where we ourselves must journey or investigate. We must do our own legwork in this area, or simply remain scholars not necessarily also Awake or Realized. Wouldn't that be a sad outcome? : ^ (
Warm Regards,
S9
One of the arguments they use is that we are born with certain characteristics that have no explanation. You are born with a bad temper, for instance. They say it has to have a cause as everything else, it can't be pure randomness, so they call the cause for that rebirth.
Some other explanations [abridged, snippets of many texts] goes as follows:
It would be incorrect to say that this mind could arise from any working thing other than matter or mind, and so it must come from one or the other of these two.
Suppose you say that it's matter which provides the material cause. Is it matter in the sense of some substance which is a whole, or is it atoms?
Suppose you say that atoms [organ\body parts\cells\molecules or atoms] provide the material cause for the mind. If it's that the mind arises through each of the atoms [organ\ body parts], acting independently of each other, then many different mental consciousnesses would have to arise at the same time. If it's that the atoms must act all together in a group, then the mind could never arise if even a single atom [organ\body part] were absent.
What about a case where the power of the eye [or any body part, the brain for instance] is damaged, and because of this the consciousness of the eye loses its ability to see its object? Isn't it common knowledge that you then undergo some feelings of distress, and that these affect the mind? [the opponent here is trying to say that when the body is hurt the mind is subject to change, so it has to be body parts].
This though is no problem. It is true that such cases are possible, but it is not that mind is affected by the damage to the sense power. Rather, the damage to the eye power provides a general condition for a separate occurrence, the distress [so what he is saying is that when the brain is injured, for example, the mind, which is not physical, experiences distress]. The distress itself increases to a point to where the mind as well is affected.
This reasoning, where we use the process of eliminating all other possibilities, brings us to the conclusion that the material cause for mind is mind itself.
The mind that acts as the cause must moreover either be one which is part of yourself or one which is part of someone else. Suppose you say that a mind which is part of someone else, of someone like your father or mother, acts as the direct material cause for this mind. The problem then arises that—where the father is a skilled artisan, or say foolish, or whatever—the son must always be this way as well.
This leads us to conclude that it can only be a former mind which is part of our own stream of consciousness that provides the material cause [for our mind as it exists just after we are born.]
Among humans as well some come with larger bodies, and then some with smaller ones. Certain people come with a very sharp intellect, and others with one which is dull. Some children display a great amount of understanding and love and the like, while others show a tendency towards attachment and other bad thoughts. According to you, these and similar cases should be impossible, because beings take birth only through the elements, without having to depend on any earlier instance of a similar type.
N: The idea is that the mind-stream doesn't depend on the body.
S9: I must admit that I am not clear on what you mean by mind-stream. Is this like habits/engrams that have their own life? Or is it more like imprints on some kind of cosmic consciousness like a movie, or radio waves? Could you clarify this for me a bit? Thanx
: ^ )
N: One of the arguments they use is that we are born with certain characteristics that have no explanation.
S9: Wouldn’t genetics explain this? Genetics being a physical soup which every living thing dips into? So that temper might be a predisposition, could be from your great grand dad, often brought to the surface by circumstance.
This might be smilar to a maple seed causing a maple tree, more a cycle than a rebirth.
N: It would be incorrect to say that this mind could arise from any working thing other than matter or mind, and so it must come from one or the other of these two.
S9: This is certainly a common explanation. But than where did matter or mind come from? So often we are thrown back to the “Don’t know mind.” Things are so complex that it leaves us in awe.
I don’t think we should speculate further than we can see. Oh we can do it for fun, but mustn't consider it an answer just because we thought it, Too much fantasy and we’ll end up in a Disney film. ; ^ )
And:
Science plays a little game with our heads. It fills us up with stories and explanations about atoms, and then says there IS no atoms anymore…we were only kidding. Smile
The strange thing is that when we start looking directly, like we were born only today, we have less knowledge, but things begin to clarify for us.
I would agree with you that the body/mind is one thing…as one can see easily that they work in conjunction, yet what are they, really? I have been favoring the paradigm of them both being a dream. Can you improve on this?
N: This reasoning, where we use the process of eliminating all other possibilities, brings us to the conclusion that the material cause for mind is mind itself.
S9: This makes me think of the Big Bang Theory, where there was nothing, and then it exploded. One has to ask, “What exploded.”
‘Mind Only” makes one wonder, why mind, where did it come from? We are back to believing if we don't question. Can you see what I’m saying?
I think this is because mental concepts aren’t satisfying. They don’t nourish us. They are as thin as water soup. Fill you up only to leave you empty and hungry real quick. : ^ (
Only personal experience is any kind of a trusted answer. When you look directly, and see clearly, finally you are no longer astringed or isolated, or doing some kind of crazy dance with words. You have come home.
Remember this. When you start saying what caused what, you are reaching backwards for explanations…which only leads to an endless, “Yes but, what cause that?”
I enjoyed you interesting take on this complicated question. : ^ )
Respectfully,
S9